Monday, April 27, 2009

Ministro Vannuchi defende que Sean fique com a família brasileira





RIO - O ministro da Secretaria Especial de Direitos Humanos (SEDH), Paulo Vannuchi, defendeu nesta quarta-feira, durante audiência na Comissão de Direitos Humanos da Câmara dos Deputados, em Brasília, que o menino Sean Richard Goldman, de oito anos, fique com a família brasileira, mas mantenha contato com o pai. O ministro Paulo Vannuchi defendeu também que o pai e o padrasto entrem em acordo sobre a guarda da criança.


Pedi aos advogados das partes que conversem sobre alguma possibilidade de a criança permanecer no Brasil, mas dentro de um conjunto de direitos do pai. O pai poderia visitá-lo quando quisesse, com a lei estabelecendo estes termos, e com a possibilidade, também, de o menino ir aos Estados Unidos. Não podemos partir do pressuposto de que, se a criança for aos Estados Unidos, ela será sequestrada - disse o ministro.

Vanuchi afirmou ainda que, mesmo se o pai tivesse cometido erros ou crimes, ele tem o direito de ver a criança. Segundo o ministro, o governo brasileiro tem mantido contato direto e recente com o presidente dos EUA, Barack Obama, o que geraria um ambiente favorável à solução do caso.

Durante a audiência na Câmara, o advogado da família brasileira tentou entregar um documento à Comissão com um relato de Sean, que, segundo o advogado, deseja ficar no Brasil. Mas o deputado Miro Teixeira (PDT-RJ) afirmou que a comissão não poderia receber uma transferência sigilosa porque não é uma Comissão Parlamentar de Inquérito (CPI).

Brazilian Federal Court Must Decide This Hague Case

http://www.embaixada-americana.org.br/index.php?action=materia&id=7796&submenu=1&itemmenu=10


Brazil and the United States have an international agreement about how to handle wrongful retention and wrongful abduction of children from their original countries of residence: The Hague Convention of 1980. Both countries are obliged to make sure that this treaty is enforced.

The U.S. Embassy notes that a case centering on this question is currently before the 16th Federal Court in Rio and we are respectfully awaiting the decision of that court. Brazil has an independent and professional judiciary. This is not a question that should be decided in the press or the court of public opinion.

The wrongful removal and wrongful retention of children from their homes, and the forced separation of parent and child is unnecessary and cruel. The United States has facilitated the return of seven children to Brazil since The Hague treaty entered into force between our two countries. We call on the office of the Secretary of Human Rights to support the return of all children wrongfully removed and wrongfully retained.

Law Enforcement and International Parental Abduction

http://hagueabductions.com/component/option,com_wordpress/Itemid,58/p,10



Cops Complicit in Parental Kidnapping?

I have created a poll for other parents to grade how helpful they have found local law enforcement in finding and returning their internationally abducted children. While the poll has not received enough results to have any statistical significance I suspect it will be consistent with my own personal experience in that they have been utterly useless.

After tracing emails to Mexico I emailed my wife to call me immediately and tell me what was going on. I did not tell her that I knew she was in Mexico. In short, terse two sentence emails she continued to tell me she was in Arizona and working to resolve her “family emergency.” A week passed and I sent her an email telling her I knew she was in Mexico and that if she didn’t stop lying about where she was or what she was doing I was going to go to the FBI and report her for kidnapping, which is when her emails stopped altogether. It seems she was playing for time to delay my reporting her for as long as possible. I remember thinking at that time that I didn’t want to involve law enforcement. Too often they make matters worse than they already are in family problems. I didn’t want my son’s mother in jail and there were still many doubts in my mind as to whether or not her intentions really were to stay in Mexico. I continued to send her emails telling her to stop whatever it was she was doing (she still had not, and never has told me what she was/is doing), because once law enforcement and the courts became involved there would likely be no turning back. Finally, I called the police to report a parental abduction. I remember thinking at the time that the police would activate some sort of amber alert protocol, pull in the FBI and began to darken the skies between the US and Mexico with attornies, diplomats and federal agents. Now i’m not normally naive, but I really thought that when a 13 month old baby goes missing it would be taken seriously. Nothing could have been farther from the truth.

A Durham Police officer came and I explained the story to him. After I finished he asked me if I had a custody order and I told him I did not, to which he responded, “well then she has custody, it’s not kidnapping.” I explained to him that she didn’t have a custody order either and he said that if no one had a custody order it was joint custody, to which I agreed and said doesn’t that mean she can’t just take him out of the state without my permission, much less out of the country? To which he replied by asking me, if she was in Mexico what did I want him to do about it? I was having hard time believing the way the conversation was going but I said, I don’t know how about doing your job? How about investigating, filling out a report and listing my son in the NCIC missing person’s database? You do investigate missing persons right? And he asked me, well you know he’s in Mexico right? I said yes. And then he told me, “then he’s not missing” Now I know there are those for whom geography isn’t a strong point, so I explained to him that Mexico was kind of big, it was a foreign country and the only reason I had to believe my son was there was by tracing the IP addresses of emails. I told him that, at a minimum, my son should be listed in the NCIC. He said he’d talk to his supervisor and get back to me.

I got a call about twenty minutes later from the officer to tell me that he talked to his supervisor and they couldn’t list my son in the NCIC missing person’s database because he was not missing. I was sure I had read that the police were supposed to list parentally abducted children in the NCIC system so I went online and found what I had read again and called the officer back to tell him that the US State Department website says:

“Contact your local police, file a missing person’s report, and request that your child’s name be entered into to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) computer database. This is a mechanism provided to you by the Federal National Child Search Act of 1990… Make this report and enter your child in the NCIC even if you think you know where your child is located in another country. If your local law enforcement is unaware of the legal requirements for immediate entry into NCIC, please let our office know.”

And gave him the URL of the State Dept website. He said he’d look into it. I did not hear back from the officer. My son was not listed in the NCIC and no report was ever filed.

A few days later I called the police station and asked to talk to a supervisor. I talked to a sergeant who also told me they couldn’t list my son in the NCIC since he wasn’t “missing” if he was with his mother. Once again I told them that federal rules required them to enter my son into the system, and she told me she’d talk to one of her colleagues that handle parental abduction cases. She called me back and told me that I was right they could list him in the NCIC database, but it wouldn’t matter, because if they found my son and he was with my wife, the officers on the scene would just let them go and remove him from the NCIC system since she had custody and he had been “found.” They suggested I hire a lawyer. Once again, no report was filed and my son wasn’t listed in the NCIC system.

I did some research and found a good attorney in Durham county who was able to get me on the courts calendar and get me an Ex Parte emergency custody order within days. Once I had the order I went back to the police station with it and they, reluctantly, filed a missing persons report and listed my son in the NCIC. Now that my son was “officially” missing I could go to the FBI. I will save that story for another time, but here’s a hint, they were not much better.

Friday, April 24, 2009

Brazil: Shame on You, O Globo, for Slander and Malice on Goldman Case

http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/10593/

Written by Jackie Greenberg
Wednesday, 04 March 2009

Dear O Globo Editors and Journalists, the article on the Sean Goldman case that was published on February 28th, 2009 in O Globo should embarrass each and every one of you. It is a shameless attempt at character assassination. As journalists, you have an obligation to investigate statements you publish, especially those in your article of such a slanderous and malicious nature, and report fairly.

Here are just some of the issues with your article that make me question Globo's journalistic integrity:

1. Your article states unchallenged that these families were totally open to a visitation with Sean if David had only pursued it. The question you need to ask is who was going to dictate the terms of these visitations, including the one Bruna's father so generously offered to fly David down for?

The reason this is important is they wanted David to do things on their terms, signing away rights and dealing with local family courts where they have the greatest influence. David was wise to avoid this on the advice of his attorneys.

It is quite interesting that you allow these families to claim they would have been so accommodating with visitations, yet the first time a court actually awarded a visitation, João Paulo Lins e Silva absconded with Sean for the weekend, after David had flown to Brazil to see his son for the first time in over four years. That clearly shows they were only ever interested in a visitation if it were on their terms.

2. You state: "Bruna won custody of her son and remade her life." Sure, in Brazil she did. But how about reporting that a US court (here is the original Court Order: http://www.bringseanhome.org/USOrder.pdf) declared her abduction illegal under New Jersey law, awarded custody to David, and ordered Bruna to return with Sean to the US for a joint custody hearing (which she ignored to her death)?

You mention a document Bruna sent to the court to justify her actions, yet fail to mention documents condemning her actions from an actual Court of Law (as opposed to one person's opinion). And even some Brazilian judges agreed the abduction was illegal. Did you bother to look through the court records?

Any unbiased expert on the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction would tell you that what Bruna did was a clear violation of the Convention and exactly the kind of thing it was meant to prevent. In fact, you didn't even mention the Hague Convention, which is at the very root of the diplomatic crisis brewing between Brazil and the US. You conveniently left out all of these facts.

3. David has received donations through the BringSeanHome website but how does that prove he's in this only for the money, or even reasonably suggest it? The donations are to pay his legal costs associated with getting Sean back, which stand right now at over US$ 350,000. That still cost him US$ 200,000 after you subtract the US$ 150,000 settlement he received from Bruna's parents.

That settlement was the result of a child-snatching lawsuit, something very common in the US in these cases. Here is a document published by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that on page 105 describes how left-behind parents of international child abductions can use this tactic:

http://www.ncmec.org/en_US/publications/NC75.pdf

and the language I'm referring to:

Child-Snatching Tort Suits

Consider a child-snatching lawsuit against the abductor and accomplices. See "Civil-Court Remedies If Your Child Is Abducted" beginning on page 21. If the abductor has assets remaining in the U.S., consider bringing a civil child-snatching lawsuit against the abductor in U.S. courts and attaching his or her U.S. assets.

This may serve as leverage to obtain the return of the child, and, if successful, may help finance an overseas investigation or legal battle. If the abductor has received help from friends or relatives who remain in the U.S. or have assets in this country, consider suing them as well. If you obtain a judgment against them, attach their U.S.-held assets.

Any lawyer who did not pursue this lawsuit in US courts would be guilty of incompetence. The suggestion in your article is that a "deal was made" in exchange for US$ 150,000. Where is the proof David agreed to anything other than releasing Bruna's parents (not Bruna) from that lawsuit, which again was a child-snatching lawsuit to help him in his battle to bring Sean back through leverage and the financing of his legal battle, having nothing to do with the ongoing Hague case with Bruna.

It is unethical to print the slanderous allegation that David is trying to profit from this case without attempting to verify its accuracy. Nowhere in the entire process since Sean's abduction did David ever stop fighting for Sean's return. And that is proven in the court records.

4. What proof is there that David has profited from selling Sean's image on mugs, T-shirts, etc.? That is totally unsubstantiated and makes readers wonder whether you took Luca Bianchi's word as gospel without asking for proof that this had indeed occurred. Did you click on the Internet link they've been sending around where they claim these items are for sale?

Have you researched where the items were being sold and who the seller was? David has tens of thousands of supporters around the world organizing rallies, email campaigns, etc. Some of them had the idea to make some of these items for a rally to help spread awareness of the case. The bottom line is it was not done for financial gain and David had nothing to do with producing the items and never saw any money from them.

Again, accusing David Goldman of being more interested in getting money out of this than actually winning back custody of his son is probably one of the most slanderous charges one can make of a father. Yet you allow these people to do it without challenging their statements or researching the matter yourselves.

5. Have you bothered to investigate Maria Augusta Carneiro Ribeiro's background? I did and it turns out she has been associated with kidnappings in the past and been in prison for her terrorist actions (see: US Ambassador Elbrick). She's hardly a reliable source for comments on this case given her own associations with kidnapping and her kinship with a kidnapper.

6. You quote Maria Augusta saying "there was never any attempt by the biological father to contact his son." That is simply untrue. There were many attempts. David has taped phone conversations where he was hung up on by Bruna's parents. And, at one point they also started sending letters and packages David sent to Sean back to David, unopened. No attempt to contact his son? Not on their terms perhaps.

7. You never mentioned that the Special Secretariat for Human Rights of the Presidency of the Republic of Brazil, the Brazilian Central Authority for the Hague Convention, through the Attorney General, initiated legal proceedings to secure the restitution of Sean Goldman to the US.

The Brazilian government is officially on record supporting Sean's return to his father in the US. Don't you think those are important facts to mention to the Brazilian people? Not as important as David and Bruna's sex life apparently.

8. And finally, you just purged one of your articles the other day of the names of all the Brazilian participants in this case. Why is it now okay to report those names, with the notable exception of course of Paulo and João Paulo Lins e Silva? If the media gag order was supposedly for the protection of the child, as was claimed, why is that no longer a concern of yours? I guess the need to protect the image of the Lins e Silvas and Bianchis is more important now, once you saw they were losing the battle in the court of public opinion.

And just a brief comment about your strategy of writing a slanderous article about David Goldman and claiming you tried to contact him for his side of the story. When did you call him, the evening before you published? Presumably you had been working on this story for at least a few days. To pretend you made a sincere effort to contact David is difficult to believe.

By publishing a one-sided hit job on David Goldman it is apparent you're trying to turn this case into a he-said-she-said regarding David and Bruna's marital situation. That's tabloid journalism at its finest. This is a story about a man who wants his son back, a son who was abducted by his late wife and was never held accountable.

That crime is being perpetuated by João Paulo and Paulo Lins e Silva, who are using their legal knowledge and influence in the Brazilian judiciary to manipulate the court proceedings and circumvent the laws they pretend to defend. How disgusting!

One day, after Sean is finally returned home, history will look back on this case, and it will not look back kindly. Not only will people come to understand the human rights and children's rights violations that the Lins e Silva and Bianchi families perpetrated, but also how many in the Brazilian media aided in these illegal, immoral, and inhuman acts of two corrupt and arrogant families by not reporting the facts of the case.

N.J. Senators Say Son Belongs With Father in United States

http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=307802

Press Release of Senator Lautenberg
Lautenberg, Menendez Call on Brazilian President to Take Action to Return Sean Goldman to Father

N.J. Senators Say Son Belongs With Father in United States; Request Meeting With Brazilian Ambassador to Settle International Custody Dispute

Contact: Lautenberg Press Office (202) 224-3224
Thursday, February 5, 2009



WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) today called on Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to follow international law and assist in the return of Sean Goldman to his father in the United States. Sean Goldman, who is eight years old, was taken to Brazil by his mother Bruna Goldman in 2004 and kept in Brazil without the consent of the boy’s father – David Goldman. David Goldman has since waged a legal battle to get his son back.

Under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of the International Abduction of Children, of which both the U.S. and Brazil are signatories, a child who is a habitual resident in one party country, and who has been removed to another party country in violation of the parent's custodial rights, is to be returned to the country of habitual residence.

Bruna Goldman passed away in 2008. Sean is currently in Brazil with his stepfather. In January, Sen. Lautenberg personally met with David Goldman and U.S. Ambassador to Brazil Clifford Sobel in separate meetings about the abduction case. A copy of the Senators’ letter is attached and pasted below:


Dear President Lula:

We are writing to bring your attention to an international custody dispute involving David Goldman, a United States citizen from New Jersey, and his son, Sean Goldman. In 2004, Sean, a United States citizen, was taken to Brazil by Mr. Goldman’s late wife, Bruna Goldman, for a two-week vacation. Once in Brazil, Mrs. Goldman informed Mr. Goldman that she would permanently stay in Brazil with the child without Mr. Goldman’s consent. Since that time, Mr. Goldman has not been permitted to visit with or gain custody of his son, even after Mrs. Goldman’s death in 2008.

For the past four years, Mr. Goldman has been working within Brazilian and U.S. courts, to secure return of his son and assert his parental rights. On August 26, 2004, two months after the child’s arrival with his Mother in Brazil, the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey issued a ruling ordering that Sean be returned to the United States. When the child was not returned, Mr. Goldman filed judicial proceedings with the Federal Court of Rio de Janeiro based on the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of the International Abduction of Children. Under the Hague Convention, of which both the U.S. and Brazil are signatories, a child who is a habitual resident in one party country, and who has been removed to another party country in violation of the parent's custodial rights, is to be returned to the country of habitual residence.

The failure to return Sean to Mr. Goldman appears to be in direct contradiction to the intentions of the Hague Convention. It is our understanding that Mr. Goldman has been prevented from securing the return of Sean to the United States based upon Article 12 of the Hague Convention, which states that it is within a judge’s discretionary power to refuse return of a child if the application for return is made more than one year after the date of the taking and the child has become settled in the new environment. However, this application of Article 12 hardly seems fair under these circumstances, and seems inconsistent with the language and purpose of the Treaty. Mr. Goldman did petition for the return of his child within a year of his being taken to Brazil. Additionally, it would set a dangerous precedent to deny parental rights based of the length of time for which the parent was denied access to the child and time-consuming judicial proceedings.

Further, with the death of Bruna Goldman, any possible argument of the child having become acclimated in the care of his Mother has dissipated. Mr. Goldman is Sean’s remaining biological and legal parent.

As we are sure you can appreciate, these four years have been extremely painful for Mr. Goldman. He has not been permitted to see his son Sean since 2004 – and even when Mr. Goldman traveled to Rio de Janeiro in October 2008 for visitation ordered by the Brazilian court, Sean was hidden from him and those rights were violated. Many diplomatic efforts have been made to ensure Sean’s return to his father. The U.S. Embassy in Brazil has repeatedly urged Brazilian authorities to recognize Mr. Goldman’s paternal rights and the international and national laws that favor his case. Furthermore, the Special Secretariat for Human Rights of the Presidency of the Republic of Brazil, the central authority for the Hague Convention in Brazil, has sent a request to the Office of the Attorney General for the return of Sean to the U.S.

Given the strong and friendly relationship between our two countries, we are writing to respectfully ask that you examine this case and take appropriate action to reunite Sean and his father. We also request a meeting with Ambassador Antonio de Aguiar Patriota at his earliest possible convenience. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,


U.S. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ)
U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)

House of Representatives calls upon the Brazilian government to fulfill its obligation under international law

http://bringseanhome.org/hr125.html

111th Congress
1st Session

H. RES. 125

Calling on the central authority of Brazil to immediately discharge all its duties under the Hague Convention by facilitating and supporting Federal judicial proceedings as a matter of extreme urgency to obtain the return of Sean Goldman to his father, David Goldman, for immediate return to the United States.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 4, 2009
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESOLUTION

Calling on the central authority of Brazil to immediately discharge all its duties under the Hague Convention by facilitating and supporting Federal judicial proceedings as a matter of extreme urgency to obtain the return of Sean Goldman to his father, David Goldman, for immediate return to the United States.

Whereas, on May 25, 2000, Sean Goldman was born in Red Bank, New Jersey, the son of David Goldman and Bruna Bianchi Ribeiro Goldman who were married in New Jersey in 1999;

Whereas Sean Goldman lived with his parents the first four years of his life in Tinton Falls, New Jersey;

Whereas, on June 16, 2004, Sean and his mother Mrs. Goldman left together with Mrs. Goldman's parents for a planned vacation to Mrs. Goldman's parents' home in Brazil ;

Whereas upon her arrival in Brazil , Mrs. Goldman called Mr. Goldman to advise him that their marriage was over and that she would not be returning Sean to his home in New Jersey;

Whereas Mr. Goldman has been trying unsuccessfully since June 17, 2004, to secure the return of his son from Brazil ;

Whereas, on August 26, 2004, the Superior Court of New Jersey awarded custody to Mr. Goldman, ordered Mrs. Goldman and her parents to immediately return Sean to the United States, and indicated to Mrs. Goldman and her parents that their continued behavior under United States law constituted parental kidnapping;

Whereas, on September 3, 2004, Mr. Goldman filed an application for the immediate return of Sean to the United States under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the `Hague Convention');

Whereas the Federal Republic of Brazil acceded to the Hague Convention on October 19, 1999, and the Hague Convention entered into force between Brazil and the United States on December 1, 2003;

Whereas, pursuant to article 12 of the Hague Convention, the judicial authority of Brazil was required to order Sean's return to the United States `forthwith,' customarily defined under international law as within six weeks after an application for return has been filed;

Whereas, on October 13, 2005, the Brazilian court refused to return Sean in contravention of Brazil's obligations under the Hague Convention even though it found that Sean was a habitual resident of the United States and, pursuant to international law, had been wrongfully removed and retained in Brazil ;

Whereas, on August 19, 2005, the Superior Court of New Jersey found both Mrs. Goldman and her parents to be in willful contempt of the court's orders and further found Mrs. Goldman's continued retention of Sean actionable under the International Parental Kidnapping and Crime Act of 1993 as well as New Jersey's criminal statutes;

Whereas the contempt of Ms. Goldman and her family continued after the court's August 19, 2005, order and Mr. Goldman was afforded no contact with his son;

Whereas Mrs. Goldman obtained a divorce from Mr. Goldman without notice through the Brazilian courts and soon thereafter married João Paulo Lins e Silva;

Whereas, on August 22, 2008, Mrs. Goldman tragically passed away during childbirth leaving Sean without a mother and separated from his biological father in the United States;

Whereas in September 2008, Mr. Goldman traveled to Brazil to visit and rightfully reclaim full custody of his son, Sean;

Whereas, upon his arrival, Mr. Goldman learned that Mr. Lins e Silva had petitioned the Brazilian courts for custody rights over Sean and also had secretly petitioned the Brazilian courts to replace Mr. Goldman's name with his own name on a new birth certificate to be issued to Sean Goldman, despite the fact that Mr. Goldman, not Mr. Lins e Silva, is Sean's biological father;

Whereas in October 2008, Mr. Lins e Silva failed to make Sean available for a visitation ordered by the Brazilian Federal Court with his father, and absconded with Sean for the duration of the scheduled visitation;

Whereas Brazilian law enforcement did not provide Mr. Goldman with Sean's location during the visitation ordered by the Brazilian court and did not enforce the visitation order, even though they were informed about Mr. Lins e Silva's failure to make Sean available for the visitation;

Whereas, the Government of Brazil , through the Hague Convention, is obligated to `take all appropriate measures to secure within [its territory] the implementation of the objects of the Convention,' and `to use the most expeditious procedures available';

Whereas the judicial authority of Brazil has failed to comply with its obligations under article 11 of the Hague Convention to expeditiously order the return of Sean to the United States;

Whereas, the United States and Brazil , through the Hague Convention, have expressed the firm conviction that `the interests of children are of paramount importance in matters relating to their custody';

Whereas, furthermore, the United States and Brazil have expressed their desire, through the Hague Convention, `to protect children internationally from the harmful effects of their wrongful removal or retention and to establish procedures to ensure their prompt return to the State of their habitual residence';

Whereas the U.S. State Department determined in its 2008 Compliance Report to Congress for the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, as required under Public Law 105-277, section 2803 (the `Hague Convention Compliance Report'), that Brazil `continued to demonstrate patterns of noncompliance with the Convention in its judicial performance';

Whereas it is reported that there are nearly 50 cases in which children who were habitual residents of the United States have been wrongfully abducted to Brazil and have not been returned to the United States as required under the Hague Convention; and

Whereas Sean is being deprived of his rightful opportunity to live and be raised by his biological father, Sean could suffer developmental and psychological consequences because of this unjust separation, and it is consistent with international law to be reunited with his father in New Jersey following the death of his mother: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That —

(1) the House of Representatives —

(A) calls on the central authority of Brazil to immediately discharge all its duties under the Hague Convention by facilitating and supporting Federal judicial proceedings as a matter of extreme urgency to obtain the return of Sean Goldman to his father, David Goldman, for immediate return to the United States; and

(B) calls upon the Brazilian government to fulfill its obligation under international law to take all other appropriate measures to secure within its territory the implementation of the objects of the Hague Convention, and to use the most expeditious procedures available, pursuant to article 2 of the Convention, in the case of Sean Goldman as well as all other children from the United States whose rights are not being respected under the Convention; and

(2) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should —

(A) make the determination, through the United States Department of State in its 2009 Hague Convention Compliance Report, that Brazil is a `Country Not Compliant with the Convention', given that Brazil failed in all three performance areas of central authority performance, judicial performance, and law enforcement performance for fiscal year 2008;

(B) review its diplomatic procedures and the operations available to United States citizens through its central authority under the Hague Convention to ensure that effective assistance is provided to Mr. Goldman and other United States citizens in obtaining the expeditious return of their children from Brazil and other countries that have entered into the reciprocal obligations with the United States under the Hague Convention; and

(C) take any and all other appropriate measures to ensure that Hague Convention partners return abducted children to the United States in compliance with the Hague Convention's provisions.

END

Source: The Library of Congress - Thomas Register

US Representative Urges Brazil to Return Abducted American Child

http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/10573/

Written by Stephen Wash
Wednesday, 18 February 2009

On February 4th, 2009, U.S. Congressman Chris Smith from New Jersey state spoke before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs during its hearing on "US Policy Toward Latin America in 2009 and Beyond." The congressman made a statement condemning Brazil's weak record of enforcing the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

Smith brough to light the case of American David Goldman whose son, Sean Goldman, was abducted by his own mother to Brazil. The woman remarried in Brazil and soon after died. Even after her death the Brazilian Justice refuses to return the boy to his father who lives in the United States. Her comments are now a part of the official Congressional Record.

On the same day, Congressmen Smith introduced House Resolution 125, "Calling on the central authority of Brazil to immediately discharge all its duties under the Hague Convention by facilitating and supporting Federal judicial proceedings as a matter of extreme urgency to obtain the return of Sean Goldman to his father, David Goldman, for immediate return to the United States."

Additionally, this resolution describes all of the various failings of the Brazilian judiciary and law enforcement in the handling of this case, and calls upon the United States Government to declare that Brazil is a "Country Not Compliant with the Convention."

On February 5th, Senators Lautenberg and Menendez of NJ released an open letter to Brazilian President, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. The letter summarizes the case and urges President Lula to take action and return the child to the United States.

Additionally, it warns of the precedence that could be set if a strategy of delay and legal miring so that the child adapts to his abductors is permitted to become a basis for denying the return of any abducted child.

Congress's sudden involvement in this case was spurred by the national reaction to the NBC Dateline television special featuring David Goldman and his tragic story of the abduction of his son. On January 30th, nearly 5 million viewers tuned in to learn of this heartbreaking saga.

Their response was overwhelming, flooding websites and email bins, searching for more details and demanding action from both governments. Nearly 30,000 people signed the petition or joined the Facebook group to show their support for David's efforts to be reunited with his son.

Congressman Chris Smith and his wife were among those watching. The Smith's were moved by David's plea for help and his obvious love for his son. At his wife's urging, Congressman Smith immediately contacted his staff to inform them that he was going to get involved.

That very night, his staff contacted David Goldman and scheduled a meeting for the following Monday. At the meeting, the congressman presented David with an offer: he would do everything in his power to help David bring his son back home including accompanying David to Brazil for any future court proceedings.

The opportunity to honor that promise came quickly. David and Congressman Smith flew to Brazil together on February 5th, 2009 to meet with high level government officials and to attend a court ordered mediation hearing.

Together with U.S. Ambassador Clifford Sobel and David's Brazilian legal representatives, the pair met with Sean's Brazilian guardian and Judge . At this hearing, David was finally granted the right to visit his son for the first time in four and a half years. Other issues related to custody of the child were not determined.

The illegal behavior of one person and his success in manipulating the Brazilian justice system has brought international attention to the human rights record of an entire country. In addition to the Goldman case, there are nearly fifty other open cases of children abducted to Brazil from the United States alone.

Certainly this is not what President Lula wishes to deal with as he prepares to enter into negotiations with the new administration in the United States over critical issues such as free trade and biofuels.

Yet there is little doubt that unless he and Justice Minister Tarso Genro act to ensure that this case and others like it are handled at the federal or supreme court level and that judges are directed to follow the Hague Treaty, he will face public demonstrations as well as resistance from Washington during his upcoming visit to United States.

Campaign to Bring Back to US Boy Abducted to Brazil Gathers Momentum

http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/10397/

Written by Stephen Wash
Friday, 19 December 2008

On June 16, 2004, Sean Goldman, born in New Jersey, then at age 4, was abducted by his mother, Bruna Bianchi Goldman, from the United States to Brazil. Ever since the kidnapping, David Goldman, Sean's father, has waged a legal battle to have Sean returned as required by U.S. law and an international treaty signed by both the U.S. and Brazil.

After Bruna's recent death, the man recently married to her was shockingly awarded temporary custody by a Brazilian court.

Through rallies, email campaigns and petitions, supporters of Sean and David Goldman have taken their fight to the public. Leveraging the power of the Internet, they aim to create public awareness and outrage in both the United States and Brazil for the plight of this father and son.

The central point of this effort is their website, http://bringseanhome.org. The site serves as the central location for all information and planning to help spread the news of this tragic story.

Visitors can sign the on-line petition, follow links to published news videos and stories, sign up to receive news updates, or leave a comment on the blog. Additionally, there is contact information for U.S. elected and diplomatic officials, Brazilian officials, human rights organizations, media and many, many others.

Over 15% of those who have signed the petition have not been from the United States, and many are from Brazil. Several native Brazilians have contributed to the effort by translating information and news stories into Portuguese. This is evidence that the campaign truly is an international battle against a grave injustice.

On December 12th, many of the supporters gathered in front of the Brazilian consulate in New York city. Beneath banners declaring "Bring Sean Home", they handed out flyers and collected signatures for the petition. This event was covered by local news and included a quote from the Brazilian consul.

The campaign has been quite successful in the United States in raising awareness, and is increasing in momentum in Brazil as well. Tens of thousands of "hits" have been recorded at the website, and national news outlets are beginning to cover the story.

As a result of the increased exposure, David has been able to speak with U.S. and Brazilian officials and has been invited to appear on several upcoming national news programs.

Many Brazilian officials realize that this type of publicity is not good for Brazil, especially given these difficult economic times. Time and again, human rights violations have proven to generate worldwide attention.

Brazil has taken strides in addressing the issues of slave labor and indigenous people's rights, strides that were necessary in order for it to be truly considered an emerging nation. But other issues remain, including the failures of its justice system.

It is yet to be proven that this campaign has been completely effective for one simple reason: Sean remains in Brazil. But it is a certainty that the voice of the people - not the American people, but people from all nations who abhor injustice and human rights violations - is being heard.

The Story

On June 16, 2004, David Goldman said goodbye to his son, Sean, at Newark Airport, in Newark, New Jersey. He didn't know it at the time but his wife, Bruna, was in the process of abducting Sean and taking him to Brazil with no intention of ever returning. In the United States and under international law, this is called kidnapping.

Brazil is a participating member in an international agreement known as the Hague Treaty, which deals with several issues related to international child custody including custodial kidnapping. As per this treaty, Sean should have been returned to the United States for a hearing to determine a custodial agreement.

Instead, Sean's mother retained Brazilian lawyers who successfully sought a Brazilian custodial award for the mother simply on the basis that Brazilian law favors the mother. This was accomplished in spite of the Brazilian Central Authorities stated position that Sean should be returned to the United States.

The case took a bizarre turn when Bruna Goldman divorced David in Brazilian court and preceded to marry her lawyer, João Paulo Lins e Silva, and expert in international family law, including child custody cases. Soon after, Bruna died suddenly during child birth.

Upon hearing of Bruna's passing, David Goldman immediately flew to Brazil to seek custody of Sean. Much to his surprise, "temporary" custody was awarded to Lins e Silva on the basis that during this difficult time, the child needed his familiar surroundings. No mind that these surroundings were familiar because of the fact that he had been illegally kept there for nearly two years.

For four years, David Goldman has fought a desperate and expensive legal battle for custody of his son, first against the mother Bruna and now against João Paulo Lins e Silva and his father, Paulo Lins e Silva, an internationally known lawyer. During that time he has never been permitted to see Sean.

This legal battle has generated several acts on the part of the Lins e Silva's. They have delayed at every possible step. They have fought to have all information pertaining to this case banned from Brazilian media.

They have defied Federal Judiciary visitation orders. They have counter sued David Goldman, claiming that his public interviews have damaged their international reputations.

Son Abducted by Mother to Brazil Can't See US Father Even After Mother's Death

http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/10167/

Written by Stephen Wash
Monday, 10 November 2008

On June 16, 2004 David Goldman said goodbye to his son, Sean, at Newark Airport, in Newark, New Jersey. He didn't know it at the time but his wife, Bruna, was in the process of abducting Sean and taking him to Brazil with no intention of ever returning. In the United States and under international law, this is called kidnapping.

Brazil is a participating member in an international agreement known as the Hague Treaty, which deals with several issues related to international child custody including custodial kidnapping. As per this treaty, Sean should have been returned to the United States for a hearing to determine a custodial agreement.

Instead, Sean's mother retained Brazilian lawyers who successfully sought a Brazilian custodial award for the mother simply on the basis that Brazilian law favors the mother. This was accomplished in spite of the Brazilian Central Authorities stated position that Sean should be returned to the United States.

The case took a bizarre turn when Bruna Goldman divorced David in Brazilian court and preceded to marry her lawyer, João Paulo Lins e Silva, and expert in international family law, including child custody cases. Soon after, Bruna died suddenly during child birth.

Upon hearing of Bruna's passing, David Goldman immediately flew to Brazil to seek custody of Sean. Much to his surprise, "temporary" custody was awarded to Lins e Silva on the basis that during this difficult time, the child needed his familiar surroundings. No mind that these surroundings were familiar because of the fact that he had been illegally kept there for nearly two years.

For four years, David Goldman has fought a desperate and expensive legal battle for custody of his son, first against the mother Bruna and now against João Paulo Lins e Silva and his father, Paulo Lins e Silva, an internationally known lawyer. During that time he has never been permitted to see Sean.

This legal battle has generated several acts on the part of the Lins e Silva's. They have delayed at every possible step. They have fought to have all information pertaining to this case banned from Brazilian media. They have defied Federal Judiciary visitation orders. They have counter sued David Goldman, claiming that his public interviews have damaged their international reputations.

David Goldman's friends have created a website that publishes news and history of this tragic story. There are also email addresses and contacts of people who need to be constantly reminded that this situation must end for the sake of this child and his father.

People are invited to visit http://BringSeanHome.org and see what they can do to help.

Brazilian Maid and Mother, 19, Gets 4 Years In Jail for Stealing Tub of Butter

http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/7639/54/

Written by Elma Lia Nascimento
Wednesday, 06 December 2006

The tub of butter she stole from a market in São Paulo, in the southeast of Brazil, is worth less than US$ 1.50 (3.20 reais). The judge from the São Paulo's 23rd Criminal Court, however, thought it was fair to send 19-year old maid Angélica Aparecida Souza Teodoro to jail for 4 years.

It also didn't help that she had stolen the butter to prepare food for her two-year old son. Angélica, whose theft occurred on November 16 of last year, has already spent 128 days in the Pinheiros' Temporary Detention Center known as cadeião (big jail), a place known for the cruelty prisoners are treated by the staff.

Their "reception" personnel at cadeião was known in the past for "welcoming" inmates with a "Polish corridor," a people-made passageway through which the prisoner passes getting blows from both sides of the human walls.

Ângela is expected to serve her sentence in a semi-open regime. This would allow her to work during the day, but she would still have to spend nights in jail.

The theft happened at a market in Jardim Maia, a poor neighborhood in the east side of São Paulo. The maid's lawyer, Nilton José de Paula Trindade, is waiting for the ruling to be published in the Diário Oficial (Daily Gazette) to appeal the sentence.

According to Trindade, four years in jail is the minimum sentence contemplated by the Brazilian legislation for the crime committed by Ângela. He says, however, that he still believes the ruling can be reconsidered. "That's because she is a first-time felon and has good police record."

The São Paulo branch of the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB) decried the sentence for what it considered a disparity between the crime and the state's response to it, but they believe the ruling will be reviewed in the appeal.

Luís Flávio Borges D'Urso, OAB's president, called the court decision "inconceivable and absurd."

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Brazil's Compliance with the Hague Abduction Convention is Questioned

http://www.internationalfamilylawfirm.com/2009/01/brazils-compliance-with-hague-abduction.html

Karen Mazurkewich, Financial Post Published: Saturday, December 27, 2008

Francois Larivee is fighting for the return of his five-year-old son from Brazil. But being on the right side of the law is cold comfort to the 38-year-old businessman. He has won two court decisions in Brazil, and has followed The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction to the letter of the law, but Mr. Larivee's custody battle, which has stretched over four years, shows no signs of being resolved.

"It's a nightmare," says Mr. Larivee, who works in finance in Montreal and has seen his son only three times since his former partner kidnapped his son and moved back to Rio de Janeiro. "Every day you wake up you think of this," he adds. Every time I call, it takes me days to recover it's so traumatic, says Mr. Larivee. "It's sad because [my son] always asks: 'Daddy, why are you not here with me?' "

Cross-border custody battles are on the rise in Canada. With more people working and travelling around the globe, there is an explosion in divorces that have an international dimension, says Jeremy Morley, who runs an international family law office in New York. "The world is getting smaller and there is mixing of different backgrounds," he adds. But with the growth of bicultural marriage comes cross-border divorce.

Money and alimony is one thing, but as Mr. Larivee discovered, the worst part of separating from a spouse who no longer wants to live in the same country as you is the tragic problem of custody.

In 2001, Mr. Larivee started dating Ione, a Brazilian woman who had been working five years as an architect in Montreal. Two years later, after learning she was pregnant, the couple bought a house and moved in together. But their relationship turned "tense" following the birth of their son. In January, 2004, she travelled to Brazil for an extended 12-week trip. But when she returned to Montreal two months later, their relationship fell apart.

By August, Mr. Larivee had moved out, arranging visits with his young son three to four times a week. Before they even had a chance to explore custody arrangements, his ex-partner, on the ruse of taking a short trip to the U. S., fled illegally to Brazil with their son. Mr. Larivee learned of her deception only when he showed up at their former home after a long weekend and found his son's belongings were missing.

Mr. Larivee called the police, but his attempts to have his son returned to Montreal -- even for a basic custody hearing -- have been thwarted. "At the time, I thought it would take a month or two to bring him back," he says. I never wanted it to be public, but now I think there is nothing to do but to turn to the media, he adds.

Parental abductions are on the rise globally. The U.S. has the highest reported number of incidents in the world with 169 applications filed in 2003 -- according to the most recent statistics compiled by The Hague Abduction Convention. This represents a 13% rise since 1999. The U. S. also received 286 applications to have children returned to another country, representing a 23% rise during the same period. By contrast, Canada received 56 requests from another country seeking to have a child returned and has made 43 applications to have a child returned from another country, representing a 3% rise in cases over that four year period. The Hague convention on child abduction was drafted in 1980 to deal with the issue of parental kidnappings in cases in which the parent has rightful custody and the child in question has been taken out of the country where she/he has been residing. Since the convention was created, 74 countries have become signatories.

Under the rules of the convention, the child must be returned to their country of residence within six weeks. The convention does not decide child access. Its goal is to ensure that the courts where the child was living will have the right to make that decision.

Mr. Larivee's ex-partner, Ione, had been granted a custody judgment by a family court in Rio de Janeiro, claiming the father had abandoned them. Ms. Harnois had to fight to have the case extracted from family court and heard at the federal court level. By March, 2007 -- almost 2½ years after their first filing -- the federal court ruled that the child should be returned to Canada. The child could not leave until any appeals were heard. By October, 2007, the Federal court of appeal threw out Ione's arguments and demanded that the child be returned to Canada. Mr. Larivee's heart lifted as he flew to Rio to pick up his son. It was supposed to be a stealth operation, but when the court officers arrived to take custody of his son, Ione had taken the boy and fled once again. Her lawyer, however, sat parked in front of the house and informed the officers that the door was open. According to Ms. Harnois, Ione's father, who was also at home, told the officers: "Francois is a good guy, but my daughter is a lioness and she'll fight until the end; you'll never have that child."

Two days later, Ione obtained a decision from the vice-president of the federal court of appeal suspending the decision to have the child removed to Canada. Not only did she get another reprieve, she's working on two more appeals -- one with the Supreme Court of Justice in Brasilia and the second at the Federal Supreme Court in Rio. She's seeking to have the previous judgments overturned. The revolving doors of Brazil's justice system have not stopped turning. Mr. Larivee's case, while unusual, is not the only one pending in Brazil. David Goldman, a father from New Jersey, has also been fighting Brazilian courts for the return of his son, Sean. In June, 2004, Mr. Goldman's wife, Bruna Bianchi Carneiro Ribeiro, travelled to Brazil on vacation with their son. The day they arrived, she called back home and informed her husband she was not returning. He has never been permitted to see his son, and a panel of five judges at the Superior Court in Brazil awarded custody to Bruna in a three-to-two decision.

The Goldman case has made media headlines in the U. S., and he's gone on talk shows such as Dr. Phil to present his story. Mr. Goldman did not get the same positive court outcomes in Brazil that Mr. Larivee has had to date, but he was certain he would finally get custody of his son after learning his ex-wife, who had remarried in Brazil, had died in childbirth in August, 2008. But the case has since taken an ugly twist. In September, Mr. Goldman learned that his wife's widower, Joao Paulo Lins e Silva, ironically a family lawyer in Brazil, had filed to get Mr. Goldman's name taken off his son Sean's birth certificate and have it replaced with his own so the child could remain with him in Brazil. Mr. Silva was awarded temporary guardianship. "He's from an influential family and they are using their power and connections to make it more difficult [for me]," says Mr. Goldman who argues that his case is a basic violation of human rights. "It seems this far in Brazil, possession is nine-tenths of the law," he adds.

Mr. Larivee is holding out hope that his son will one day be returned. He's burned through $150,000, and still there is no end in sight. Brazil's record on judgments on The Hague cases has been spotty. In addition to the Goldman case, a return to Israel was refused, a return to Norway was partly granted--for summer periods only -- and the outcome of another request from the U. S. remains indeterminate.

Mr. Larivee has been learning Portuguese to better communicate with his growing son who's not been taught English or French, although his ex-partner is fluent in both languages. Although he hasn't seen his son much over the years, Mr. Larivee is inspired by the affection the little boy apparently holds for him.

When it comes to love and custody, the Brazilian courts are not playing fair. Mr. Larivee is worried that even if he does eventually win his case, the court won't send the child back to Canada on the grounds that too much time has passed and it would not be humanitarian to remove him from the country he's grown up in. Mr. Larivee is haunted by his ordeal, yet he only shrugs when asked if there was anything he would do differently. "I've done everything I could do, everything right," he says. "Maybe, don't marry a Brazilian."

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

A recent Chabad Lubavitch billboard in Manhattan


THE SHLUCHIM OR EMISSARIES ALL BELIEVE THE REBBE IS THE MESSIAH

INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF SHLUCHIM
NOTICE THE BANNER DECLARING "LONG LIVE THE KING MESSIAH" IN HEBREW
THE SHLUCHIM OR EMISSARIES ALL BELIEVE THE REBBE IS THE MESSIAH





http://israel613.com/LUBAVITCH.htm


TO OUR GOOD FRIENDS OF CHABAD LUBAVITCH:
WHAT A GREAT WORK YOU DO ON BEHALF OF ALL JEWS. YOU ARE ALWAYS INVOLVED IN GREAT ACTS OF KINDNESS TOWARDS THE JEWISH PEOPLE, BRINGING THEM CLOSER TO TORAH AND MITZVOT

THERE IS NO ONE ELSE THAT DOES AS MUCH KINDNESS AS YOU DO, FOTUNATE IS YOUR LOT

NEVERTHELESS BE WARNED ABOUT SOME TROUBLING DEVELOPMENTS WHICH YOU SHOULD BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT

YOU ARE MAKING THE REBBE INTO A FALSE MESSIAH AND WHO KNOWS WHAT ALL THIS WILL LEAD TO?

PLEASE LEARN HOW TO LOOSE, IF THE REBBE IS JUST THE REBBE, IS THAT NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU?

LET HASHEM DECIDE WHO THE MOSHIACH IS, BE PATIENT, BECAUSE NOBODY KNOWS YET WHO THE MOSHIACH WILL BE




PLEASE HONOR THE MEMORY AND HONOR OF THE HOLY ALTER REBBE ZTK'L

DO NOT DEPART FROM THE SHULCHAN ARUCH AND FROM THE TRUE TEACHINGS OF THE BAAL SHEM TOV AND THE ALTER REBBE

THE ALTER REBBE SCREAMS AND CRIES: "I MADE CHABAD CHASSIDISM AND NOW YOU WANT TO MAKE A NEW JESUS OUT OF IT? NOT EVEN REGARDING THE HOLY BAAL SHEMTOV NOR THE ARI HA KADDOSH, DID WE DO WHAT YOU DO NOW"

FROM THE SEFER: HA EMET AL CHABAD

The Rebbe as Moshiach - According to Chabad

http://www.chabadworld.net/page.asp?pageID=21B2CAF6-8CBC-4843-8085-C1EA5D80CB85&moshHdr=1



Based on Torah criteria, the Rebbe may be considered to be Moshiach. It is apparent from our review of the criteria and his accomplishments, and this has been confirmed by the Rebbe. It is apparent because Torah authorities have ruled this matter conclusively (as will be evidenced below). And it is apparent because the Rebbe himself admitted to being Moshiach on numer­ous occasions, albeit indirectly, in keeping with his humility. Indeed, in 1991 and 1992, the Rebbe alluded to himself as Moshiach more times than he has ever, in 40 years, alluded to the fact that he is the Rebbe.


International Rabbinic Rulings On Moshiach


Throughout this century, and especially recently, there has been unprecedented consensus among all types of Rabbinic authorities, Chassidic and non-Chassidic, Ashkenazic and Sephardic, that the long awaited Messianic redemption is finally at hand. Most of these Rabbinic authorities signed legal rulings testifying to this. Why should they bother? Does rabbinic acceptance make a differ­ence? According to Judaism, yes. According to Torah, when a ruling of Torah Law is made, it establishes a true and permanent reality in the world.


The Rebbe said that through the rulings of Torah Law concern­ing the coming of Moshiach, Moshiach has already started to affect the world.5 The Rebbe was always accepted as Moshiach by his followers, but the Rebbe himself was gradual about publicizing his true identity and ultimate significance. In the Rebbe's talks, starting in 5749-1989 he had asked that rabbinic leaders take initiative and rule on the immediacy of the Messianic redemption. When such declarations were reported to the Rebbe, he would give his approval and blessing.6


In 1992, 175 leading rabbis around the world signed a Torah ruling stating that the Rebbe has satisfied the legal requirements to be Moshiach.7


Following his apparent passing in 1994, some questioned whether the Rebbe may have lost his status as the presumed Moshiach. According to Judaism, Moshiach may come from the living or from the dead. Practically speaking, many Jews had trouble accepting that Moshiach can arise from the dead for numerous reasons. .


Following the apparent passing of his predecessor, the Rayyatz, the Rebbe pointed out that the Rayyatz would lead this generation out of exile, even though to assume this role he would have to be first resurrected prior to the redemption (out of sequence with the accepted timing of the popular resurrection which will occur 40 years after the rebuilding of the 3rd temple). He brought proofs from Talmud and other Torah sources, of course, but the fact that he made the ruling brought the possibility from the realm of remote theory to immediate practicality.


Next have been decisions by the late Rabbi Aharon Soloveitchik, the Rabbinic head of the Orthodox Union,8 and the late Rabbi Pinchas Hirschprung, Chief Rabbi of Canada.9 Both wrote that having faith in the Rebbe as Moshiach after his apparent passing is perfectly acceptable, according to Jewish Law.


Finally we have a more recent ruling by over 100 leading rabbis from around the world who issued a joint ruling that deals with the Rebbe's status as prophet, and as Moshiach, as well as the Torah obligation of each person to follow his directives. The translation of their ruling follows below:


Tishrei 5759 (October, 1998)


The following ruling of Jewish Law is hereby established:


The Lubavitcher Rebbe in his speech of Parshas Shoftim 5751 (August 17, 1991), has established a practical ruling of Jewish Law that there is in this generation of ours, a prophet, and we are required to obey him in accordance with the ruling of Maimonides in Chapter 7 of the Laws of Torah Foundations.


As the Rebbe states: " ... we must publicize to all the people of the generation that we have merited that the Holy One Blessed Be He has chosen and appointed a free-willed indi­vidual, himself incomparably exalted over the people of the generation, who is to be the judge, the advisor and the prophet of the generation, who will give instruction and advice regarding the work of the entire Jewish people ... including the essential prophecy - the prophecy of "imme­diate redemption" and immediately in actuality "behold this Moshiach coming. "


In his speech of Parshas Vayera, 5752 (October 26, 1991), the Rebbe states: " .. .In these days of ours, all obstacles have been nullified, etc., and therefore we have (not only the existence of Moshiach, but) also the revelation of Moshiach, and now we need only to accept the face of our Righteous Moshiach with tangible action. "


In his speech of Parshas Mishpatim, 5752 (February 1, 1992), the Rebbe states: "And thus is the ruling of the rabbis and experts in Jewish Law that the time of the Redemption has arrived, "a king shall arise from the House of David, etc., he is assumed to be Moshiach, " and the Rebbe further added to this ruling that, "it is demonstrated that he is certainly Moshiach, " and in this speech the Rebbe hinted clearly that he is the King Moshiach.


We hereby establish in this Jewish Legal Ruling according to our holy Torah - based on the Law expressed by Maimonides in the Laws of Torah Foundations, 7:1, 9:2, and 10: 1 - that the Rebbe, King Moshiach, has the legal status of a Prophet, and that he has explicitly proclaimed about himself that he is a Prophet, and it is understood from his talks that he himself is- the King Moshiach and he moreover encouraged the singing of "Long live the Rebbe, king Moshiach, forever, " and he has already said before all the Jews and before the entire world, predictions that were fulfilled completely, in the Six-Day War, the War of Attrition, etc., etc.


And therefore we are obliged to obey all that he tells us, as defined by the obligation of obeying the words of a Prophet, and including that he is, indeed, the King Moshiach and he will be revealed to us immediately, tangibly.


Live, our Master, Teacher and Rebbe, King Moshiach forever and ever.


Signatures of over 100 leading Lubavitch Rabbis world­wide, including chief elders, the chief Rabbinate in the community at Lubavitch World HQ in NY, and leading emis­saries on five continents.


In summary, the rabbinic rulings have established as binding Torah Law that (1) The Messianic redemption is at hand. (2) Moshiach may be resurrected. (3) The Rebbe is Moshiach. (4) The Rebbe is a prophet of Biblical stature. (5) The Rebbe admits to being a prophet and to being the King Moshiach. (6) We should follow him and believe his words, including that he is Moshiach and will presently be revealed to us tangibly.

Kelipot and Sitra Achra

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/361900/jewish/Kelipot-and-Sitra-Achra.htm

Kabbalah uses the term Kelipah to describe evil. Literally, Kelipah means a “peel” or “shell,” as in the peel of a fruit.

An orange will not retain its juice if it does not have such a protective jacket. However when one eats the orange, one discards the peel. The peel is only there to preserve the fruit. The same is true of the existence of evil. Hassidism uses the terminology “inner will” (Pnimiyut HaRatzon), and “external will” (Chitzoniut HaRatzon). When a person goes out to work, he gets involved with all the details of making a living. However, his is engaged only with his external will. His inner desire is to make money in order to do what he really wants. The existence of Kelipah stems from the outer will of G-d, whereas Kedushah (holiness) stems from the inner will of G-d.

Kabbalah divides everything in this world into either Sitra D’Kedushah (the side of holiness) or Sitra Achra (the side of impurity)—literally meaning “the other side,” or the side of Kelipah. There is nothing that is in between—every thought, speech, action, or creation has its source either in Kedushah or Kelipah.

The holy side is the indwelling and extension of the holiness of G-d that rests only on something that abnegates itself completely to Him, either actually, as in the case of angels above, or potentially as in the case of every Jew below who has the capacity to surrender himself completely to G-d with self-sacrifice. This is what is meant when the Sages proclaim that even when a single individual sits and learns Torah the Shechinah rests on him. However, that which does not surrender to G-d, but is a separate entity, does not receive its vitality from the inner will of holiness. Rather, vitality is given from “behind its back,” descending degree by degree through myriads of levels through innumerable contractions until the Light is so diminished that it can be compressed and enclosed in a state of exile within that separate thing.

Kabbalah further delineates two distinct types of Kelipah: Kelipat Nogah—literally Kelipah that can be illuminated, and Shalosh Kelipot Hatmayot—“three totally impure Kelipot.” Kelipat Nogah can be uplifted and refined, while the only form of reformation or redemption for the three impure Kelipot is their destruction.

In the chariot of the prophet Ezekiel, the three unclean Klipot are called “whirlwind,” “great cloud,” and a “blazing fire,” while Kelipot Nogah is described as the “translucence [nogah] around it.” From the three impure Kelipot flow and derive the souls of all living creatures that are not kosher as well as the existence of all forbidden food in the vegetable kingdom, such as Orlah (the first three year’s fruit of a tree). The existence and vitality of all actions, utterances, and thoughts pertaining to the 365 negative commandments and their offshoots also flows from these Kelipot. Everything in the realm of holiness has its opposite in the realm of the profane. Similarly, everything in the physical world has its spiritual counterpart from which it derives its existence and vitality. The Nefesh HaBehamit of the Jew, the souls of the kosher creatures, and the existence and vitality of the entire inanimate and entire vegetable world permissible for consumption, and the existence and vitality of every act, utterance, and thought in mundane matters that contain no forbidden aspect, whether performed for the sake of Heaven or not, all stem from Kelipat Nogah.

G-d created “one thing opposite the other.” A Jew is composite of two distinct souls. His Nefesh Elokit, which is comprised of ten soul powers whose source is in the supernal Sefirot, is juxtaposed with the Nefesh HaBehamit, also possessing ten soul powers. The soul powers of the Nefesh Elokit strive for Kedushah and the soul powers of the Nefesh HaBehamit long for Kelipah. These two souls vie for control of a person’s thoughts, speech, and action, which are often referred to as “garments” of the soul. A person is constantly faced with a choice to either flood the soul garments with Kedushah or garments of Kelipah. If a person allows the Nefesh HaBehamit control of the mind, then the soul garments may be contaminated by the impurities of the animal drive. These impurities are vain and ruin the spirit.

Postville: A Clash of Cultures in Heartland America

by Stephen G. Bloom (Author)

Postville: A Clash of Cultures in Heartland America

Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com Review
Postville, Iowa (population 1,478), seems an unlikely place to find a sizable Jewish population, let alone an ultra-Orthodox Lubavitcher population. It is, after all, in the heart of pork country, and the world headquarters of the Lubavitchers is far away in Crown Heights, Brooklyn. But when the Hygrade meat processing plant, just outside Postville, went belly-up, threatening the town with decline, Sholom Rubashkin bought it and turned it into a glatt kosher processing plant, complete with shochtim and a rabbinical inspectorate. By the late 1980s, "Postville had more rabbis per capita than any other city in the United States, perhaps the world."
The enterprise was a huge international success, with its kosher meats exported even to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. The Jewish population grew to 150, and they were rich. The town was saved, and the people were grateful. All's well that ends well? Not quite. The Hasidim kept to themselves, did things their own way, and basically had no interest in integrating into Postville. And why would they? Their laws are strict, their mission clear, their community defined by race and religion. They are not interested in watermelon socials or coffee klatches at the diner. Their little boys do not swim with their little girls, are not educated together, and do not go on play dates with goyim. Small-town Iowans, on the other hand, are very friendly. They know each other's news, they support each other's businesses, they wish each other Merry Christmas, they want you to feel at home. They don't like that the new townspeople stomp up the street hunched over, talking in a foreign language and looking straight through them when greeted. They really don't like it when one of the newcomers drives around town with a 10-foot candelabra strapped to his car playing music at full volume for eight consecutive winter nights. They don't actually know about menorahs or Hanukkah.

Into this comes secular Jew Stephen Bloom, a professor at the University of Iowa. By the time he arrived in Postville, the town was riven along religious lines. One of the townspeople was running for mayor on the sole platform of annexation of the land on which the plant stood. Rubashkin was threatening that he'd shut the plant and leave if that came to pass. Bloom closely considers both sides, and the result is a wonderful book. It is a fascinating tale of culture clash in the American heartland: the John Deere cap meets the black fur hat. It is a book about identity and community and what it means to be American. It covers all the things you aren't supposed to talk about at the dinner table--religion, politics, and even sex. It is full of suspense: Will the plant be annexed? Will the Jews leave? And it is also Bloom's exploration of his own sense of belonging. --J. Riches --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Publishers Weekly
Bloom's account of a vicious clash between the residents of a small, intensely Christian town and the group of Lubavitcher Jews who open a highly successful kosher slaughterhouse there is a model of sociological reportage and personal journalism. In 1987, after a Hasidic butcher from Brooklyn bought a slaughterhouse in Postville, Iowa, and began to relocate Jewish and immigrant workers to the area, the town began to change. While some residents were suspicious and anti-Semitic, most were happy to see the town rise above its previous financial destitution. But the Lubavitchers, who traditionally live and work within their own closely knit communities, were not interested in fitting into Postville, and many were dismissive of, or overtly hostile to, its original citizens. After the Lubavitchers started buying real estate and exerting greater influence on the town's finances, longtime Postville residents began to feel marginalized, yet their reactions caused the Jews to become more isolationist. The slaughterhouse also caused problems: workers were paid below minimum wage and were uninsured, women workers were sexually harassed and fighting among the (often illegal) immigrant workers escalated. Finally, the town took legal action to gain more control over the slaughterhouse. Bloom, a professor at the University of Iowa, writes cleanly and with great insight and temperance about these events. As a secular Jew, he also weaves in his own story as he tries to find some common ground with the Lubavitchers. His book proves an illuminating meditation on contemporary U.S. culture and what it means to be an American. Agents, David Black and Gary Morris. BOMC and QPB selection; 8-city tour. (Oct.)
Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Library Journal
When a group of Hasidic Jews opened a kosher slaughterhouse just outside the small, financially struggling town of Postville, IA, their arrival brought financial benefits as well as cultural conflict with the locals. In order to force the slaughterhouse administration to pay taxes to the town, the Postville authorities decided to annex the land where the slaughterhouse was located and held a vote to see whether the townspeople support this idea. Bloom (journalism, Univ. of Iowa) came to Postville not just to investigate the story but to reach out for a bit of his Jewish heritage, which is hard to maintain in Iowa. He was frustrated by the Hasidim, who at first wanted no part of him and then sought to convert him and his family, and they were angered by his refusal to take their side. By the end of the story, Bloom realizes that he can maintain his Jewish identity and live in the middle of the Iowa farmbelt, the Hasidim realize that they may have to make adjustments to stay in Postville, and the people of Postville realize that the Hasidim are there to stay. Part cultural history, part search for identity, this book makes for balanced, interesting, and insightful reading, but a glossary of Jewish terms would have been extremely helpful. For American studies, Iowa history, Jewish studies, and social studies collections.ADanna Bell-Russel, Library of Congress
Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Booklist
Few ethnographers would select a small Iowa farming community as a likely locale for studying ethnic conflict. But when devout Lubavitcher Jews decided in 1987 to locate a large kosher slaughterhouse near Postville, Iowa, this obscure town grew taut with ethnic tension, as easygoing locals suddenly found themselves confronting a militant religious community indifferent, at times even contemptuous, of their long-standing traditions. As a recent transplant from the West Coast and as a Jew skeptical of Lubavitcher theology, Bloom chronicles Postville's culture wars with a clear-eyed objectivity. Recoiling from both redneck anti-Semitism and Lubavitcher self-righteousness, he ferrets out the truth about how rabbis conspired to shield a favored son involved in a local robbery and shooting. He likewise exposes all the political maneuvering behind a referendum intended to drive out the Lubavitchers. Yet in probing the suspicions that separate Jew from Gentile, he also uncovers surprising affinities between the two communities. In our national struggle to bring harmony out of ethnic diversity, Bloom offers an antidote against both illusion and despair. Bryce Christensen
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Review
"Foreign as these two tiny and tightly circumscribed communities are to most outsiders, the story of their clash . . . is compelling and important."-The Miami Herald -- Review

Review


A gripping portrayal of a confounding collision."-The New York Times

A fascinating portrait of a town torn in two. [A] thoughtful, compelling book."
-The Dallas Morning News

Foreign as these two tiny and tightly circumscribed communities are to most outsiders, the story of their clash . . . is compelling and important."
-The Miami Herald




Product Description
In 1987, a group of Lubavitchers, one of the most orthodox and zealous of the Jewish sects, opened a kosher slaughterhouse just outside tiny Postville, Iowa (pop. 1,465). When the business became a worldwide success, Postville found itself both revived and divided. The town's initial welcome of the Jews turned into confusion, dismay, and even disgust. By 1997, the town had engineered a vote on what everyone agreed was actually a referendum: whether or not these Jews should stay.The quiet, restrained Iowans were astonished at these brash, assertive Hasidic Jews, who ignored the unwritten laws of Iowa behavior in almost every respect. The Lubavitchers, on the other hand, could not compromise with the world of Postville; their religion and their tradition quite literally forbade it. Were the Iowans prejudiced, or were the Lubavitchers simply unbearable? Award-winning journalist Stephen G. Bloom found himself with a bird's-eye view of this battle and gained a new perspective on questions that haunt America nationwide. What makes a community? How does one accept new and powerfully different traditions? Is money more important than history? In the dramatic and often poignant stories of the people of Postville - Jew and gentile, puzzled and puzzling, unyielding and unstoppable - lies a great swath of America today.

About the Author
Stephen G. Bloom is an award-winning journalist and has been a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, the San Jose Mercury News, and other major newspapers. He now teaches journalism at the University of Iowa in Iowa City, where he lives with his wife and son.

Lawsuit Over Chabad Building Puts Rebbe’s Living Legacy on Trial

http://www.forward.com/articles/10348/

welcome_moshiach_770

By Nathaniel Popper

Published March 16, 2007, issue of March 16, 2007.

The neo-Gothic brick building at 770 Eastern Parkway, in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn, has become the defining symbol of Chabad Lubavitch as the ultra-Orthodox movement has spread around the world with its philosophy of reaching out to all Jews.

The building was once the headquarters of the Hasidic movement’s grand rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who preached in the downstairs synagogue until his death in 1994. Today, though, the building is at the center of a sometimes violent schism between the rebbe’s followers.

In a lawsuit winding its way through New York Supreme Court, two groups of Chabad leaders are fighting for control of the synagogue in 770, which sprawls through the basement of the rebbe’s former residence and a building next door. This week, the judge in the suit decided that neither side had an open-and-shut argument, and so the case would go forward to a full-blown trial.

At stake is the ultra-Orthodox movement’s most famous synagogue. But the trial will also help decide the public face that Chabad presents to the world. In short, will this be a movement defined by a Messiah, or not?

On one side of the dispute are the tight-lipped global leaders of Chabad, who own the buildings above the synagogue and oversee the flow of Chabad rabbis to almost every corner of the earth. On the other side is a group of leaders elected from the local Chabad community of Brooklyn’s Crown Heights, who say the movement’s global leaders are trying to publicly blur and deny what they describe as its doctrine about the late rebbe’s status as the messiah.

The roots of the lawsuit lie in a fracas over just this very matter back in 2004. In the middle of a November night, a band of rowdy youngsters tore out a plaque that had recently been installed at 770 by the global leaders of Chabad, who own the building. The youths were angered by the plaque because it referred to Schneerson with a Hebrew acronym used for dead people, which conflicted with the youngsters’ view that the rebbe is a still living messiah.

There probably would not have been a protracted lawsuit if it were not for the fact that the views of the young vandals coincided with the elected leaders, or gabbais, of the religious congregation in the basement of 770.

In his affidavit, the lead gabbai, Rabbi Zalman Lipskier, wrote that “the real issue in dispute involves conflicting views on how our faith views the passing of the Grand Rebbe Schneerson and whether or not at this time he may be referred to publicly as the Messiah.”

Lipskier and the other gabbais were chosen most recently in a 2005 election that was open to Lubavitch community members in Crown Heights. The gabbais have long been able to control discourse in the synagogue because they have run the day-to-day affairs in the downstairs area of the building. For the lawsuit, they have submitted documents showing that they pay the electric bills and also that they have paid for the entryway in which the offending plaque was installed.

In the wake of the plaque-stealing incident, however, the organization that owns the building, Agudas Chassidei Chabad, decided that no one else would dictate what happens on the organization’s property.

Arguing before the court, the organization’s lawyer, David Zaslowsky, said that “there should be little doubt that on the day we moved in back in 1940, if we wanted to put a plaque on that building we’d have the right to do that, and that plaque could say anything we wanted.”

A recent visit to the synagogue downstairs indicated the strong influence that the messianic gabbais have over the sanctuary. During the services, most worshippers joined in a spirited prayer that celebrated the rebbe as the messiah. On the northern wall of the sanctuary is a long banner that says “Live Our Master, Teacher, Rebbe King Moshiach Forever and Ever.”

“What does it mean, he is alive?” said Yitzhak Fuchs, a 47-year-old congregant who was standing outside in a worn suit.

“We learned the king messiah is not going to die. He is going to disappear, but he’s not dead,” said Fuchs, who, like many of the other worshippers, wore a small, yellow lapel pin with a crown and the word messiah in Hebrew.

The unanswered question at the core of the lawsuit is whether the global leadership of Chabad — men like Rabbi Yehudah Krinsky and Rabbi Yisroel Shemtov — actually disagree with Fuchs and the gabbais about the rebbe’s status as messiah.

A number of affidavits in the lawsuit assert that almost all Chabad leaders do privately believe that the rebbe was the messiah but have been afraid to talk about it publicly, for fear of scaring off the unaffiliated Jews who attend Chabad services around the world.

The head of Chabad in southern Ohio, Rabbi Sholom Kalmanson, gave an affidavit in which he argued that while most Lubavitchers believe that the rebbe is the messiah, “others believe that while the scenario is possible, it should not be a public position. A very small minority have abandoned the notion that the rebbe is Moshiach.”

Kalmanson is no longer recognized by the New York offices as an official representative of Chabad.

In the court case, the global leaders of Chabad avoid commenting on the messiah issue, and state that the matter to be settled is one of real estate and not religious dogma. But the court papers nonetheless record the back and forth on the issue.

One statement, signed by close to 250 Chabad rabbis, identifies the rebbe as the messiah. Another, signed in 1998 by eight of the most powerful Chabad rabbis, says that “the preoccupation with identifying the Rebbe as Moshiach is clearly contrary to the Rebbe’s wishes.”

David Berger, a rabbi and historian who has studied the question and been very critical of Lubavitch theology, said that neither side in the case would deny that the rebbe is the messiah. But he also noted that this does not mean there are not significant theological differences in the debate. According to Berger, there are strenuous disagreements within Chabad over whether the rebbe died to return in the future or just disappeared for a time.

In any case, Berger said, the top leaders in Chabad “don’t want it to be in the liturgy. They realize it’s very bad for the movement.”

In the basement at 770, the fervent messianists appear to be carrying the day for now. Despite repeated attempts to install a new plaque, the only sign of it today is a gap in the wall, with messy streaks of plaster. In the middle of the gap is a brown stone that was originally put there by the rebbe. As men walk into the synagogue at all hours, they touch the stone and kiss their fingers.

Is the Lubavitcher Rebbe the Messiah?

http://www.crownheights.info/index.php?itemid=5611



Is the Lubavitcher Rebbe the Messiah?
Author: Techie Category: General Published: March 20 2007
Rabbi Bruce Warshal - Jewish Light Online

A few months ago I was walking in Times Square in New York City and there were two Chabadniks handing out literature proclaiming that the Rebbe, Menachem Schneerson, was the Messiah (Moshiach). They were in competition with a guy up the street with a sign proclaiming the end of the world and that Jesus will save us if we believe in him.

Being a curious person, or maybe just a contentious one, I approached the Chabad-Lubavitchers and asked how the Rebbe could be the Messiah since he died in 1994 and was buried in Queens? They responded that he really wasn't dead and that the person buried in the grave in Queens was his father-in-law. I walked away amused and a little irritated that these jokers were there in the name of Judaism. Last month my wife, Lynne, and I were in the subterranean 42nd Street subway station and another Chabad Chasid was distributing literature. Not to offend him, heaven forbid, I took what he was offering. It is this handout that I want to discuss. Hold on to your seats, because this stuff is amazing (that's a polite adjective for ludicrous).

“America's efforts to safeguard peace around the world are critical elements in actualizing the redemption, as proclaimed by the prophet of our generation, the Lubavitcher Rebbe king Messiah (Moshiach) shlita (who lives forever)... America can be proud...in meriting the blessing of exceeding success with which the Rebbe king Messiah shlita blessed the U.S. armed forces in their holy mission in Iraq.” Never mind that Schneerson has been dead 13 years but is able to bless this latest war, making it a holy mission. No one told these people that it has not been a success. The rest of the country seems to understand that, but it hasn't gotten to Chabad headquarters in Brooklyn yet.

There's more: On Jan. 31, 1992 the United States and the Soviet Union signed a bilateral nuclear disarmament treaty. The next day the Rebbe declared this the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy of peace. Most important, “the Rebbe king Messiah shlita (who lives forever) stated that the decision of the superpowers to abolish nuclear armament production and establish a new world order based on justice was a direct result of the rabbinic ruling” (by the Rebbe).

It gets even better: The treaty was signed at the United Nations building in New York City “which is the world capital and headquarters of the Rebbe king Messiah shlita.” And the construction of the building was completed in 1951 (5711), “the same year that Rebbe king Messiah shlita officially assumed leadership.” Here's the punch line: “The reason the U.N. is situated in New York is that the leader of our generation resides in that city.”

The pamphlet further tells me that the 1991 Gulf War was part of God's redemption and that it was foretold in Jewish Midrash. Also, the Rebbe prophesied the death of Saddam Hussein in 2007 as well as North Korea's agreement to limit its nuclear plans in the six-nation talks in Beijing on Feb. 12, 2007. You may not realize that that date corresponds to 24 Shevat on the Hebrew calendar, “the day on which President Bush announced the reduction and nullification of nuclear weapons, 15 years ago. An event mentioned by the Rebbe king Messiah shlita (who lives forever) and referred to as his direct impact on the nations. In summary, there is no doubt that we are standing in the time of the actual redemption, as the Rebbe king Messiah shlita's prophecies are fulfilled completely, one after the other. Be ready for the rest of the prophecies! They're coming any second!”

The handout also said that Judaism is against free choice and gay rights. It wasn't included in the pamphlet, but the Rebbe also denied evolution. If he were alive (I'm sorry, I forgot he still lives) he would be a major proponent of “intelligent design.”

One thing I learned: a woman's place is in the home. “A home needs to be tidy and organized, but also pleasant looking. The paint should match and the curtains and furniture should look nice...Indeed, this task is the responsibility of the women and girls, who have a better taste for beauty and luxury.”

I was invited to the Messiah's house at 770 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn for a blessing. If I couldn't do that I was directed to a Web site where I could ask for a blessing from the Rebbe (who really did die in 1994). There was space on the Web site to explain my personal needs to the Rebbe and I was promised an answer within seconds. It then stated: “If you don't understand the Hebrew, please write down the volume and page numbers and ask someone from your local Chabad house to translate it for you.”

The pamphlet says it comes directly from 770 Eastern Parkway, so I assume that it is official Chabad doctrine. I am told that there are sophisticated local Chabad rabbis that do not believe the above, but I don't hear their voices. Until I hear them say that they do not believe that the Rebbe is the Messiah, I assume that they do. I also assume that they believe that the United Nations sits in New York because of the Rebbe, etc.

No responsible Jewish authority would accept the Messianic Jews (Jews for Jesus) as authentic Jews. Is there a difference between Jesus and Menachem Schneerson as the Messiah? Why do we feel comfortable davening with Chabad and not with the Jews for Jesus? Why do we invite Chabad emissaries into our Day Schools and into our Reform and Conservative religious schools to bake matzah? Would we invite Jews for Jesus to bake matzah for our children? And why do liberal Jews build Chabad houses? I think I know that answer — these Lubavitchers remind them of their grandfathers and in some sad way they look upon them as more authentic Jews.

This brings us to the crux of the matter. The pamphlet described above states: “The Rebbe of every generation provides spiritual life force for the whole generation. We, on our part, must do all we can to be 'connected' to him, only then can we receive all our physical and spiritual needs from him.” That's not Judaism. We don't need Jesus, Menachem Schneerson or any other Chasidic guru to find God. The essence of mainstream Judaism (Orthodox through Humanism) is that we can have a direct relationship with God. The word rabbi means merely teacher. No one stands between a Jew and his or her God. That's the distortion that Chasidism introduced into Judaism, whether a particular Chasidic rabbi believes that the Rebbe is the Messiah or not.

Upon leaving the subway station the Chabadnik gave me a nice business-sized laminated card with the Rebbe's picture on it with the words emblazoned “Moshiach (Messiah).” He also gave me a beautiful 9 x 11 colored picture of the Rebbe, with the same message in Hebrew.

Needless to say, I'm not going to put it on my wall.


Rabbi Bruce Warshal is publisher emeritus of the Jewish Journal of South Florida.


Posted By - Techie on 03/20/07 at 17:16

Monday, April 20, 2009

Parental Abduction is Child Abuse

Parental Abduction is a Crime in the US: US v. Fazal
April 20, 2008 ·

http://shekidnappedmychildren.wordpress.com/2008/04/20/usvsfazal/

This is for those whose children have been kidnapped from the US by a parent to Hague or non-hague countries. Many of us may not realize this but parental abduction is a crime in the US and governed by IPKCA.

There are at least 19-20 cases under IPKCA where parents have been convicted for taking children away. I have undertaken a project to research these cases and build further knowledge and will post my findings here.

The first case I am posting details on today is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Appellee,v.FAZAL-UR-RAHEMAN-FAZALa/k/a Fazal Raheman

Dr. Fazal Raheman, who was convicted of the crime in the following circumstances: He had married his wife in India and moved with her to Massachusetts. They had two children. After a few years he apparently became concerned that his wife was becoming too “independent” and he “made threats” against her. He then took the children without her consent to his former home in Nagpur, India and refused to return them. His wife obtained an emergency custody order from a court in Massachusetts while the husband obtained a custody order in his favor from the Nagpur Family Court. The mother traveled to India to try to find her children and bring them home but her husband filed criminal charges against her in India and she fled to the United States without her children. Dr. Raheman was then charged with the crime of international parental kidnapping. He was also charged with wire tapping since he had illegally tapped his wife’s telephone and videotaped her. He was captured during a return trip to the United States and after trial he was convicted of both charges and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. He was ultimately released from prison on condition that he effect the return of his two children - then 12 and 8 years of age - to their mother in the United States. However, Dr. Raheman then proceeded to provide false information to the Nagpur Family Court, which was found to have inhibited the likelihood that the children would be returned to the United States. As a result he was sentenced to a further year and a day in prison. The Nagpur court transferred custody of the children to Raheman’s elderly mother in Nagpur and the mother had no contact with them except for sporadic visits. Imposing the second sentence, Judge Patti B. Saris harshly criticized Raheman for stealing the children from their home in the U.S., and noted that Raheman had betrayed the trust of the country which had given him great benefits while he lived here. Dr. Raheman appealed but a federal appellate court held that the International Parental Kidnapping Act was applicable to a father who took his children from the United States to India even though the pre-decree abduction was not illegal under state law. United States v. Fazal-Ur-Raheman-Fazal, 355 F.3d 40 (1st Cir. 2004).

The 2002 order The 2004 opinion